Animation often brings with it associations of fairytale tropes, cutesy characters, and family-friendly storylines (with the exception of a few innuendos for the parents). But the foul-mouthed animal-human hybrids of BoJack Horseman (Bob-Waksberg, 2014-2020) exemplify the ever expanding, highly whacky world of adult animation. Although it is massively under-researched in comparison to children’s animation (Mitkus, 2023), animation aimed at adults has the ability to more explicitly foreground complex ideas around gender, in contrast to the often subtler messages in child-focussed texts. This may be through tackling more mature aspects of gender politics, such as in various episodes of The Boondocks (McGruder, 2005-2014) which feature discussions and portrayals of sex work. On the other hand, it could be through conversations between characters concerning concepts which may be seen as too complicated for younger audiences. Indeed, the episode of BoJack Horseman at the centre of the following analysis includes overt mentions of heteronormativity; toxic masculinity; patriarchy; and how the media normalises problematic ideologies and behaviours – none of which you’re likely to catch Charlie and Lola debating over pink milk.
In the fourth episode of series five, BoJack the Feminist, the audience are presented with a parodic representation of sexist men in Hollywood through the characters of BoJack and Vance Waggoner. Despite being clearly and (literally) cartoonishly misogynistic, the man and horse end up competing for the social recognition which comes with being seen as a male feminist icon. This, alongside the subplot which sees universally adored yellow labrador Mr. Peanutbutter attempting to fabricate a tougher image for himself, allows for the construction of several masculine archetypes.
It should be noted that the problematic ideologies communicated in the episode are done so for comedic effect, often through hyperbole. BoJack is framed throughout the series as a morally grey protagonist, and the audience is not necessarily supposed to like or agree with him, or any other character for that matter. In fact, this episode was made following the creator of BoJack’s discovery that Harvey Weinstein – the previously powerful Hollywood mogul and convicted sex offender – had watched the show. He felt a responsibility to more blatantly criticise men in showbiz due to fears his satirical portrayals of them may be misinterpreted (Harriet, 2023). With that being said, let’s start by looking into the first aspect of masculinity depicted in the episode.
The Woman-Hating Bigot and hegemonic masculinity
Hegemonic masculinity refers to the dominant type of masculinity in society, which seeks to uphold unequal gendered power dynamics. It is important to note that this is by no means the only type of masculinity, as is illustrated by distinctions between different men and male-coded characters. If you’re after a more detailed breakdown of this, check out my post on different masculinities and femininities.
The relevance of this construct for this case study comes from the misogynistic language and behaviour displayed by both BoJack Horseman and Vance Waggoner throughout the episode, which coalesce to form the archetype of The Woman-Hating Bigot. Notably, as in the clip below, Vance in particular repeatedly sprinkles xenophobic, racist, and/or antisemitic rhetoric through his anti-women rants, highlighting the coexistence of multiple prejudices within white hegemonic masculinity (Jewkes et al., 2015).
This segment concludes an introductory montage for Vance, featuring his various scandals, which sees the use of sexist language within twenty seconds of the episode starting. Subsequently, his behaviour and language use escalate in offensiveness until we are presented with a private voicemail in which Vance uses a misogynistic slur against his own young daughter. The relative clause “who is my daughter” which follows and modifies “you disgusting sl*t” highlights that, for Vance’s character, sexism takes precedence over family bonds and appropriate parenting. Furthermore, this outburst sees Vance express blatant disgust towards women and girls in a display of unapologetic sexism, overshadowing the subtler attitudes of superiority and sexualisation communicated in earlier scenes. This creates a caricature of toxic men and makes Vance a textbook example of The Woman-Hating Bigot. The flagrance of this revelation creates an almost absurdist effect, encouraging the audience to laugh at Vance’s character rather than agree with his comedically indefensible worldview. Nevertheless, this introduction ensures that the audience is aware that Vance Waggoner is an outright sexist, which will be important for contextualising the second archetype later on.
Whilst BoJack does not explicitly use misogynistic slurs in this episode, his language still implies sexist attitudes. Interestingly, his adherence to The Woman-Hating Bigot archetype is underpinned by his character’s reliance on the feminine archetype of The Militant Feminist. This is linguistically constructed and used to characterise Diane Nguyen, BoJack’s friend and stand-in feminist advisor, as well as women more generally. For example, whilst preparing for a TV appearance to discuss Vance’s appointment on BoJack’s show Philbert, Diane and his agent Princess Carolyn attempt to familiarise him with feminist talking points. BoJack remarks that “…the problem with feminism, all along, is it just wasn’t men doing it. We’re much less shrill.” Here, the adjective “shrill” is emblematic of wider societal anti-feminist rhetoric which portrays women’s rights activists as petulant and irritating. Additionally, the full comparative “much less shrill” explicitly positions men as superior to women which, when taken with the contextual knowledge of BoJack’s treatment of women and girls throughout the series, paints a stark picture of the character’s views on gender politics.
It is worth noting that the only other character who uses misogynistic slurs in this episode is Diane. When describing the backlash she faces when talking or writing about feminist causes, she predicts being called “dumb slunt”- a portmanteau of two highly offensive terms used to sum up the criticisms wielded by hegemonically masculine men against vocal women. This comment becomes particularly relevant when considering the response received by the male characters when discussing similar topics, which I’ll move onto next.
The Performative Male Feminist and undeserved praise
After begrudgingly receiving advice from his female colleagues, BoJack appears on chat show The Squawk to defend his professional proximity to Vance Waggoner.
In this interview, the almost tautological “choking your wife is bad” is heralded as a revolutionary feminist statement, where the description of universally condemned behaviour simply being “bad” allows BoJack to take an easy normative position and receive a disproportionate level of praise, solely due to his gender identity. The surface-level nature of his feminist analysis in combination with the audience’s preestablished knowledge of his views on women positions BoJack as an example of The Performative Male Feminist archetype, a phenomenon often recognised in the media and common parlance but surprisingly neglected in academic literature. This is further cemented by BoJack’s other mantra “don’t choke women”, which is used repeatedly and contrasts with the longer explanation offered by the female host. This suggests a lack of deeper knowledge from BoJack, as he relies on obvious prescriptions, which *spoiler alert!* he does not adhere to himself. Despite clarifying that he was not intending to make a groundbreaking claim, BoJack quickly relishes in his newfound icon status as a result of the societal praise and female attention he receives, highlighting the insincerity associated with this type of ‘activism’.
_with_Ana.png/revision/latest?cb=20190606102422)
Similarly, Vance Waggoner embodies this archetype in his prepared media statement where he explains his decision to no longer work on Philbert. Whilst literally donning a feminist cap, Vance argues that if he were to appear on the show with BoJack, he would be “complicit, no, culpable for that toxicity.” This declaration directly copies the vocabulary choice and emphasis points made by Diane earlier in the episode, showing Vance and his agent’s intentional exploitation of a woman who genuinely and passionately believes in feminism for the sake of their own publicity. This linguistic technique specifically allows the audience to reflect on the tendency of some men to hijack women’s causes and reproduce points already made by women, despite holding unfavourable views on them as a gender.
The Tough Guy and failed attempts at gendered performance
Whilst Vance and BoJack are busy trying to shed any associations with hegemonic or toxic masculinity, Mr. Peanutbutter endeavours to personify certain aspects of it in a bid to be offered more macho acting roles. Despite laying out his goal to “make people think I’m a tough bad boy, who doesn’t give a care about society’s precious rules”, the loveable canine repeatedly fumbles his attempts to appear manly and rugged, instead becoming something of an accidental hero.
The clip above shows how Mr Peanutbutter tries and fails to perform the archetype of The Tough Guy, both in his outward appearance and misjudged clothing choices, and his linguistic and paralinguistic behaviour. This representation is achieved through the juxtaposition of traditionally masculine tropes against indicators of Mr. Peanutbutter’s endearing harmlessness. For instance, the slick backing music and smug facial expression that appear moments before the reveal of PB’s eccentric outfit and personalised ‘GOODBOY’ numberplate.
In terms of his language use, a similarly contradictory picture is painted. For example, whilst the material verbs in “fight a few bouncers” and “throw a drink” exude the physical forcefulness he is attempting to convey, their proximity to the preceding elegant ballroom connotations of “I’ll waltz right in” slightly dampens their effect. Indeed, the fact that Mr Peanutbutter is even bothering to list out his planned activities, rather than wordlessly carrying out the violence, suggests a possibly unintended diversion from the behaviour expected of Tough Guys.
This analysis hopefully served as an illustration of the depth, complexity, and diversity of gendered discourses and representations in animations aimed at adults. More importantly, it should serve as a cautionary tale: if you’re planning on appointing anyone, human or otherwise, as the face of a novel feminist movement, it’s probably best to do some background checks first.
References
Harriet. (2023). Aren’t You BoJack Horseman? Critical Essays on the Netflix Series. McFarland & Company, Incorporated Publishers.
Jewkes, R., Morrell, R., Hearn, J., Lundqvist, E., Blackbeard, D., Lindegger, G., Quayle, M., Sikweyiya, Y., & Gottzén, L. (2015). Hegemonic masculinity: Combining theory and practice in gender interventions. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(2), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2015.1085094
Mitkus, T. (2023). Aspects of Creativity in Adult Animation: An Overview of Censorship and Self-Censorship in Western Countries. Creativity Studies, 16(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2023.15446